BISD election drama plays out in court

Published 12:15 pm, Wednesday, September 11, 2013

It's not the ballot box because the only vote that counts in a court belongs to the judge, but the attorneys on either of whether the Beaumont school district will have an election on Nov. 5 and who will be on that ballot are stating their cases for their desired outcome.

It will be up to 172nd District Judge Donald Floyd whether to further postpone that election in agreement with three candidates who had earlier this year sought to gain ballot placement based on their interpretation of the state's education and election codes as they pertain to school district elections.

The defendant in the case, BISD, has set an election for Nov. 5, contending state law gives it the right to do so after a federal court in April postponed the May 11 election because of an issue that was ultimately resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

That issue was whether certain states, including Texas, would continue to have any changes in election laws controlled by the U.S. Department of Justice to ensure there was no discrimination against minority voters.

Other parts of the Voting Rights Act remain in place.

The plaintiffs are arguing that because of the delays in staging the election, the defendants - the trustees whose seats might be up for election - shouldn't benefit from the delay and rescheduling.

The school district's attorney called the plaintiffs' maneuvers a "Soviet-style installation" of candidates, circumventing the democratic process and that state law, as decided by the Texas Supreme Court in 1926, allows political entities to reschedule elections after postponements.

There is no clear law on how to proceed after a federal court postpones an election, the school district attorney said.

If the political entity won't hold the election, then a court can order it.

If the entity reschedules it, that falls under the entity's discretion to proceed with it, the school district argued.

The plaintiffs however, are countering that because of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that struck down prior approval from the Justice Department, the school district's current plan is unconstitutional because it denies the ability of citizens to run based on the election map the school district now wants to use. The school district had ordered an election in February based on a different map.

The earlier map is the only legal solution available, the plaintiffs argued.

Floyd will reconvene the hearing at 1:30 p.m.

An election, if it proceeds, is 54 days away and would apply to just three trustee districts instead of the seven districts that the plaintiffs are contending should be up before voters because of the 2010 census redistricting.